Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Kosh]

Dear [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]
I noticed this list leaves out
"right to free choice of health care"

Isn't it a form of "political discrimination by creed" to use govt
to enforce only free choice of abortion for liberals who believe in that,
but to deny free choice of health care and free choice of reparative therapy
for those who have EQUAL BELIEFS about health care choices?

Why is it okay to regulate and penalize free choice of health care?

How does choosing to pay for health care for oneself and others
without using insurance "more harmful" than choosing abortion?

Fundamental Right
Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.​

You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. It is a fact that marriage is a fundamental right.

So you find a racist far left wing blog to prove your point. Good for you!

Still doe snot make it a "right".

Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones do not understand the government is supposed to work via the constitution.

[MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]
gay marriage and marriage equality
is a BELIEF, or a Political Belief if you want

It is protected from discrimination by creed
by the Fourteenth Amendment

if we want the liberal Democrats to recognize
Natural Rights or Religious Liberty as a "BELIEF protected by law"
we must also recognize
Right to Health Care or Marriage Equality as a "BELIEF protected by law"

Instead of fighting to deny or discredit/discriminate AGAINST each other's beliefs,
the point is to argue
1. they cannot be IMPOSED by law because they are BELIEFS
2. they can only be DEFENDED by law from infringement because they are BELIEFS

To enforce Equal Protection of Constitutional Beliefs
we must acknowledge the others are equally defended beliefs,
and in doing so, establish in public these CANNOT BE IMPOSED BY LAW

"Marriage" is not a "right"..

"Marriage" is a product of religion and many governments have chosen to recognize a "religious" marriage. It does not mean that it is must be applied equally. Statements like the far left makes shows that many do not know what they are talking about.

If you are "Married" and on partner wants to end the "Marriage" to the other partner that just violated someone's "rights".

Government should not be in the business of "Marriage".

The "gay" agenda has never been abut "equal" rights it has been using a term that has been well established in religion and trying to force the church to accept them. The far left grab onto this "cause" due to the potential of getting at the money of the churches.

Many of the so called "rights" that the far left takes up are not true "rights".

Although for the far left to want government involved in "Marriage" then want to claim "separation of church and state" on many other issues just to go that this an agenda and not based on "rights", but something else.

If they wanted the could have pushed for Civil Unions and it would have met with much less resistance.

 

[Yurt]

Emily and the rest of you who have trouble with majority rule and SCOTUS.

Our Rule of Law is not going to change.

Opine all you want, but our society changes in these ways and always has and will except once when the far right reactionaries got out of hand. They will never do that again

This is how it is done.

notice how jake never debates. he just make empty platitudes.

 

[MaryL]

No, of course not. Forcing people to violate their religious or moral principals violates the spirit of the constitution. I don't want to split hairs here, use common sense, most of you can be fair and objective and differentiate between religion and extreme fringe weirdo haters. Of course, you folks CAN be objective on this issue, right? I hope so.

 

[Seawytch]

So you find a racist far left wing blog to prove your point. Good for you!

Still doe snot make it a "right".

Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones do not understand the government is supposed to work via the constitution.

Cornell Law is "leftist" blog? Are you really as stupid as the moron you portray on the internet?

Yes and your highlighted section shows why it is a far left blog site!

"Marriage" is not a "right"...

You're just going to keep repeating incorrect information even after being given evidence to the contrary? What purpose does that serve?

Again, let us suppose that the SCOTUS did not declare marriage a fundamental right in Loving v Virginia (1967), Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978) and Turner v Safley (1987)...what reason could you have to deny what you believe to be a privilege, to gays and lesbians?

 

[Yurt]

Emily and the rest of you who have trouble with majority rule and SCOTUS.

Our Rule of Law is not going to change.

Opine all you want, but our society changes in these ways and always has and will except once when the far right reactionaries got out of hand. They will never do that again

This is how it is done.

notice how jake never debates. he just make empty platitudes.

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]

 

[JakeStarkey]

That SCOTUS opinions and majority decisions that do not injure minority rights protected by the 14th Amendment indeed is how we function by the Rule of Law.

Those who oppose ACA have the right to opine but not obstruct the action of the law except in the legislatures and in the courts.

Those who oppose marriage equality have the same rights.

All of the continuing simple denial by opponents mean squat.

It is what it is.

 

[Gadawg73]

So you find a racist far left wing blog to prove your point. Good for you!

Still doe snot make it a "right".

Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones do not understand the government is supposed to work via the constitution.

Cornell Law is "leftist" blog? Are you really as stupid as the moron you portray on the internet?

Yes and your highlighted section shows why it is a far left blog site!

"Marriage" is not a "right"...

Marriage is a CONTRACT

Please show us where gays are banned from entering into a marriage contract.
The Constitution does not ban it.
Sorry about that.

 

[Tuatara]

Still don't care. You don't get it do you? I don't care what you think the law of the land is. I don't care what the constitution says, if it violates the Bible.

I'm a Christian. As a Christian, the Bible is the highest authority in my life. Higher than you... higher than the law.... higher than the Constitution, the President, or the Supreme Court.

Now as long as all those things do not contradict the Bible.... we're good.

But the moment they contradict the Bible... you lose. I'm going with the Bible. And that sir, is all there is to it.

Now this is the problem I have with Christians. When they claim their bigotry and homophobic beliefs on the bible. I'm sorry but not one christian follows the bible as a moral guide on any kind of authority. Yes, they pick and choose certain snippets to hide their racist or bigoted or homophobic issues and claim the bible for their moral compass. Yet they chose to ignore other parts of the bible such as slavery and killing someone who works on the sabbath to name a few. You're all cowards to take refuge in certain passages in the bible while completely ignoring and dismissing others. At least stand up to your own decisions and quit hiding under the skirt of the bible.

Also the bible contradicts itself many times over so you better start over or bow out and admit that you're homophobic. What else scares you?

 

[Seawytch]

Still don't care. You don't get it do you? I don't care what you think the law of the land is. I don't care what the constitution says, if it violates the Bible.

I'm a Christian. As a Christian, the Bible is the highest authority in my life. Higher than you... higher than the law.... higher than the Constitution, the President, or the Supreme Court.

Now as long as all those things do not contradict the Bible.... we're good.

But the moment they contradict the Bible... you lose. I'm going with the Bible. And that sir, is all there is to it.

Now this is the problem I have with Christians. When they claim their bigotry and homophobic beliefs on the bible. I'm sorry but not one christian follows the bible as a moral guide on any kind of authority. Yes, they pick and choose certain snippets to hide their racist or bigoted or homophobic issues and claim the bible for their moral compass. Yet they chose to ignore other parts of the bible such as slavery and killing someone who works on the sabbath to name a few. You're all cowards to take refuge in certain passages in the bible while completely ignoring and dismissing others. At least stand up to your own decisions and quit hiding under the skirt of the bible.

Also the bible contradicts itself many times over so you better start over or bow out and admit that you're homophobic. What else scares you?

 

[Redfish]

Still don't care. You don't get it do you? I don't care what you think the law of the land is. I don't care what the constitution says, if it violates the Bible.

I'm a Christian. As a Christian, the Bible is the highest authority in my life. Higher than you... higher than the law.... higher than the Constitution, the President, or the Supreme Court.

Now as long as all those things do not contradict the Bible.... we're good.

But the moment they contradict the Bible... you lose. I'm going with the Bible. And that sir, is all there is to it.

Now this is the problem I have with Christians. When they claim their bigotry and homophobic beliefs on the bible. I'm sorry but not one christian follows the bible as a moral guide on any kind of authority. Yes, they pick and choose certain snippets to hide their racist or bigoted or homophobic issues and claim the bible for their moral compass. Yet they chose to ignore other parts of the bible such as slavery and killing someone who works on the sabbath to name a few. You're all cowards to take refuge in certain passages in the bible while completely ignoring and dismissing others. At least stand up to your own decisions and quit hiding under the skirt of the bible.

Also the bible contradicts itself many times over so you better start over or bow out and admit that you're homophobic. What else scares you?

Could you please give us the quotes from the Bible, Torah, or Koran where God condones gay "marriage" ?

No one is scared of gays. No one is scared of gays living together in a legal committed relationship. But no matter how many ways you try to spin it, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

 

[Redfish]

The poll at the beginning of this thread sums it up pretty well.

At least as to the members of this forum, freedom is their primary concern.

 

[Seawytch]

Now this is the problem I have with Christians. When they claim their bigotry and homophobic beliefs on the bible. I'm sorry but not one christian follows the bible as a moral guide on any kind of authority. Yes, they pick and choose certain snippets to hide their racist or bigoted or homophobic issues and claim the bible for their moral compass. Yet they chose to ignore other parts of the bible such as slavery and killing someone who works on the sabbath to name a few. You're all cowards to take refuge in certain passages in the bible while completely ignoring and dismissing others. At least stand up to your own decisions and quit hiding under the skirt of the bible.

Also the bible contradicts itself many times over so you better start over or bow out and admit that you're homophobic. What else scares you?

Could you please give us the quotes from the Bible, Torah, or Koran where God condones gay "marriage" ?

No one is scared of gays. No one is scared of gays living together in a legal committed relationship. But no matter how many ways you try to spin it, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

I can quote passages from the bible that prohibits interracial marriage, will that do?

 

[Seawytch]

The poll at the beginning of this thread sums it up pretty well.

At least as to the members of this forum, freedom is their primary concern.

Yeah, most of us agree that churches will never be forced to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Most of the liberals insist upon it...it's the nutty RWers that are screaming about the sky falling. Ain't gonna happen, but it's fun when ya'll get all drama queeny.

 

[emilynghiem]

Of course the courts will protect the churches' rights to private association.

I have a constitution.

Yes, you do, and the courts will interpret it for you on questions like the OP.

Dear [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] and [MENTION=49484]Ibentoken[/MENTION]
Clearly on issues of Constitutional/federal law, the Supreme Court is designated authority for determination where govt authority applies according to the Constitution.

The issue with gay marriage, health care through govt, etc.
is that people are projecting their BELIEFS that inherently involve govt as part of those beliefs or process of exercising those beliefs.

Because both govt authority and religiously held beliefs are inherently entangled in these cases, they cannot be separated like "church from state."

So that is what is causing irresolvable conflicts: once conflicted political beliefs are injected into govt and especially when Courts are asked to RULE on such cases.

Like JakeStarkey pointed out in other words, the biased conflicting agenda on both sides is going to fail because that is those people's beliefs and it is wrongful to project them through govt. The other side is going to object.

Instead of SETTING UP govt and Courts to fail, by this no-win situation of forcing Courts to take one side over the other, I believe in protecting both sides' religious and/or political beliefs EQUALLY: either separate or resolve the conflicts, and only write/pass/rule on laws that both sides AGREE respects and includes their beliefs IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Do NOT do the equivalent of taking a rule, like defining marriages to be sacraments anointed using pork oil or using beef oil, and cause Hindus and Muslims to sue the Govt, both claiming the oil cannot contain pork or it cannot contain beef or it violates the sacred beliefs of their religion. Why make the court/govt choose either pork or beef, "one side over the other" Someone is going to lose their EQUAL religious freedom by doing that.

Instead either write the law where it doesn't require or specify either pork or beef products, or let each church decide its own sacraments, or something. But not this!

It is logically false and emotionally cruel to set both sides up to fail, including the courts/govt, by forcing the question in such a state that either side or both sides will not have equal protection of their beliefs.

I suggest handling political beliefs, or religious beliefs that become political when injected into govt, by mediation and consensus so all beliefs/sides are equally protected.

If people cannot believe consensus is possible, that is yet ANOTHER political belief that is involved in this dilemmas. I DO believe consensus is possible, by being open to remove religious beliefs from govt AND making sure all objections are resolved. Just imposing beef oil, and expecting Hindus to remove their beliefs from govt is NOT equal protection. Or Just imposing pork oil, and expecting Muslims to remove their beliefs from Govt is not equal. But that is what is happening here, because both sides go into the Court NOT respecting what happens to the other person's beliefs. They only seek to defend theirs and don't care if it imposes on the others, which they do not respect as valid beliefs.

I see the progay and antigay as Hindus and Muslims. I don't agree with either viewpoint but I believe they should be equally protected by law, and the laws carefully written not to violate either the beliefs of Hindus or Muslims, here representing the pro and anti gay.

You absolutely have the right to be either pro or anti gay when it comes to marriage, as Hindus or Muslims can be anti pork or anti beef about food and products. They also have the right to "let it slide" and not raise an issue if they can forgive a little pork or beef oil being used; but that cannot be forced on them by govt, if people choose to relinquish some of their beliefs it must be by consent or sure they have a right to sue, as the Atheist who sues over a cross while other atheists don't and let that slide if they want.

So the govt must be neutral and cannot impose policies without the consent of people whose beliefs are affected. I don't have to agree with one side or the other to respect laws that meet the standard of equal protection of the laws. Why set ourselves up to fail?

 

[Redfish]

Could you please give us the quotes from the Bible, Torah, or Koran where God condones gay "marriage" ?

No one is scared of gays. No one is scared of gays living together in a legal committed relationship. But no matter how many ways you try to spin it, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

I can quote passages from the bible that prohibits interracial marriage, will that do?

please do, but include the entire context of the quote.

 

[strollingbones]

yes or give up their tax exemptions....one or the other..they cant have it both the ability to discriminate on the taxpayers who support them? when a church becomes involved in political issues they should give up the tax exempt status

 

[Redfish]

yes or give up their tax exemptions....one or the other..they cant have it both the ability to discriminate on the taxpayers who support them? when a church becomes involved in political issues they should give up the tax exempt status

Does that also apply to unions and organizations like planned parenthood?

 

[emilynghiem]

[MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]
Yes, it will support the argument that marriage should be kept out of the govt altogether, since even as it stands, it already imposes on some people's religious beliefs.

Some atheists sue and win their cases to have crosses removed from public institutions.
Many atheists don't sue and just put up with the imposition. I know a friend who has more right to sue than cases that have won, but he puts up with it for fear of reprisal.

But govt CANNOT MAKE you forgive these impositions that are going on religiously.
You STILL have the right to sue and change the laws if you want to.
If people choose not to sue, it doesn't mean there ISN'T a religious imposition by govt.

The death penalty is another imposition on a lot of people's religious beliefs, and war is for people who don't believe but still pay taxes to the military.

If we write the laws better, this doesn't have to happen, the conflicts can be bypassed.

One state allowed gay marriages in churches, but did not have the state endorse them.

I can quote passages from the bible that prohibits interracial marriage, will that do?

Yes, I have spoken with Klan who still believe this today against race mixing.

And the bone marrow registry can verify it is harder to find matches for biracial patients that have practically 0 chance of finding a match, compared with pure Caucasian patients having 90% and minority patients of pure race having 10% chance of a match where their highest chances are to find a match within their own ethnicity or nationality.

So there are differences with biracial children, not found in those of pure race.

 

[JakeStarkey]

yes or give up their tax exemptions....one or the other..they cant have it both the ability to discriminate on the taxpayers who support them? when a church becomes involved in political issues they should give up the tax exempt status

Does that also apply to unions and organizations like planned parenthood?

Are they social education and awareness organizations?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pure race arguments are incorporated into those who approve of Scientific Darwinism.